Can you imagine walking into his office with every credit card you have maxed out and not enough income to pay the minimum payments or other bills and hearing.... "you need to call your credit cards and beg for them to increase your credit limit, keep spending as is and find a way to make more money so you can pay your minimum payments". This guy is amazing.

Then, he says today he "can't guarantee Social Security checks on 8/3/11" if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Well, I can guarantee Social Security checks on 8/3/11 because SS isn't a "debt" like a treasury bond, it is an entitlement will be paid regardless of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised. Scaring old people... back to the Democrat playbook.

Republicans need to play this right. Either they hold Obama over a barrel now and get massive spending cuts and no tax increases OR just wait until 8/2 and get spending cuts because the government has no money to spend. Spending will be reduced either way.

Rob, first, let me say that I hate Obama and everything he stands for! Second, I have to tell you that you are WRONG regarding Social Security. Many people are misled to believe what you believe...

Quote:

SS isn't a "debt" like a treasury bond, it is an entitlement will be paid regardless of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised. Scaring old people... back to the Democrat playbook.

In theory, of course, Social Security is supposed to continue paying benefits by drawing on the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is supposed to provide sufficient funds
to continue paying full benefits until 2037, after which it will be exhausted.

At that point, by law, Social Security benefits will have to be cut by approximately 22 percent. However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used
to pay benefits. Any Social Security surpluses accumulated to date have been spent, leaving a Trust Fund that consists only of government bonds (IOUs) that will eventually have to be repaid by taxpayers. As the Clinton administrationís fiscal year 2000 budget explained:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expendituresóbut only in a bookkeeping sense. . . . They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Governmentís ability to pay benefits. (FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

Social Security is out of money... and has been for a very long time. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a fund that you draw money against, but a bond fund that is borrowed and must be repaid with interest.

Why is the debt limit different now then when Ronald Reagan was President and it was raised 7 times?
I don't remember all the outcry like were having now.

The Republicans will do ANYTHING to defeat this President, and raising the debt limit is the new boogey man.

Oh, and Republicans in congress, where are the jobs?

Silly... the government does not create jobs, the private sector does. Reagan implemented policy to get out of the way of the private sector, reversing what Carter did, so that it could create jobs, very similar to what President Palin or Bachmann will do. Obama has implemented policy (Obamacare, EPA, NLRB regarding Boeing) that does nothing but stops the public sector from creating jobs.

But to answer your question, the main difference is that during the Reagan administration helped to submit a budget for the years that he was in office, Obama has not submitted a budget other than the one that was voted down with ZERO support by his own party.

Are you really going to try and put the majority of this fiasco on Obama? Whether he's done a rotten job or not, he's played a very small part in the situation we're in right now. You can't even blame just one side or the other on this. This is the fault of so many of our leaders, past and present.

There are two kind of people in this world: people that benefit from income redistribution (Dems) and people that lose their money to it (Republicans). What 9/11 type event did Obama have to overcome?? Where are the jobs from the stimulus? How many jobs has Obama created period? Democrats have to blame Bush because they simply can't name a single thing Obama has done that hasn't been a total disaster. Boy Wonder is simply Jimmy Carter Phase 2. Even Democrats are asking if he knows what the hell he is doing.

Sam, you don't understand what I am saying. You don't think I know SS is nothing but a failed Ponzi Scheme? Any private company running a similar scheme would see their executives hauled off in shackles. Another great example of a failed, bankrupt government program. What I am saying that the government will continue to take in tax money and SS will continue to be paid regardless of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised or not. Guaranteed. Entitlements are going to continue to be paid. You will see National Parks getting shutdown and USDA Officials getting unpaid holidays before any entitlement is not paid on time.

There are two kind of people in this world: people that benefit from income redistribution (Dems) and people that lose their money to it (Republicans). What 9/11 type event did Obama have to overcome?? Where are the jobs from the stimulus? How many jobs has Obama created period? Democrats have to blame Bush because they simply can't name a single thing Obama has done that hasn't been a total disaster. Boy Wonder is simply Jimmy Carter Phase 2. Even Democrats are asking if he knows what the hell he is doing.

Winner of the most misguided post of the day.

First, exactly how will dems benefit while repubs lose their money? News flash, dems work and pay taxes as well. Dems have retiirement accounts and invest in the stock market. Second the republicans are not in your camp. They want to spend excessively, just like the dems. In fact, when these discussions come up I rarely see anyone who appears to have a clue as to why we are in the situation we're in. And I rarely see a meaningful suggestion about how to change things.

Quote:

You don't think I know SS is nothing but a failed Ponzi Scheme?

But I bet it isn't the Ponzi scheme you think it is. In your mind it's a bunch of people who didn't pay in that are getting excessive benefits. In reality it's the govt using SS contributions to fund it's excesive bloat. Taxes aren't a Ponzi scheme. It's simply the govt telling you to give it money. SS is currently funded well enough to pay benefits. It's lack of money at this time is not the result of a Ponzi. It's the result of the govt taking the money and in a potential position of not making good.

Quote:

Any private company running a similar scheme would see their executives hauled off in shackles. Another great example of a failed, bankrupt government program.

You are wrong. the program is not bankrupt. The govt is. SS has quite a bit of money that the govt owes it.

Oh I know, you are going to say that SS is the govt. The problem is that people who can't differentiate such things are also not capable of grasping anything about govt spending.

Quote:

What I am saying that the government will continue to take in tax money and SS will continue to be paid regardless of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised or not. Guaranteed.

The biggest recession since the Depression along with an already $10+ trillion in debt and climbing the day he set foot in office. If you think McCain or any other President could have fixed the economy by now, you're living in fantasy land. It actually can be and is argued that all that stimulus money actually prevented even worse economic problems.

As I said, this whole thing can be blamed on a whole lot of past and present leaders. I think we're just screwed with our political system. We've got leaders that vote down party lines rather than actually thinking and voting on things on a case by case basis. Then their main concern is getting re-elected rather than doing what's right and best for the country in the long run, but almost nobody wants to vote for a leader who suggests raising taxes and cutting back on anything that affects them, so we've basically screwed ourselves over time. Most of us want higher taxes for someone else and cuts that don't affect us. That's tough to do with a population of 300 million.

The situation we are in doesn't have as much to do with political parties or individual politicians as it does with general economic philosophy. It is big government & centralized planning vs. small government & free markets. Both parties and most politicians advocate big government despite what they may say because it gives them more power. My opinion is that Obama has taken big government philosophy to a whole new level with the amount of debt and deficit he has added in his two years in office. I think that some of the new republicans in congress might actually be people who will stand up for their small government and free market beliefs, but until there is a conservative president in the White House, nothing but this pointless bickering is going to happen.

Here's a couple of videos with a unique approach to describe the two theories. Maybe some of you have seen them before. The second one is more recent. I don't know how to embed so could someone please do that for me. Thanks.

9/11 was nothing to overcome. It should have had no economic impact on the nation. We should have been in Afghanistan for a year tops. And there should have been no nation rebuilding. Bush was instrumental in turning 9/11 into an economic disaster. You have three things going on here...

1) Dems blaming Bush for blame he deserved.
2) Dems using that blame as an excuse to hold power.
3) Republicans and Dems continuing to destroy American hand in hand while acting like idiots.

The sooner people accept that this is happening the sooner they can recognize that one party isn't to blame. Both parties = 1 govt that is acting against our best interest.

Can one of you Obama fans please explain to me the Democrat Party/Obama position on the NLRB action with Boeing? How is their position helpful in any way? What does it tell other companies that want to bring new manufacturing jobs to the US?

Brett- Obama did a lot of this to himself. McCain (although I can't stand the guy) wouldn't have pushed through an unpopular healthcare bill that nobody wanted and all businesses simply hate. Obamacare is one reason the economy is in the tank along with uncertainty because Obama keeps threatening to raise taxes and thinks anyone that pays taxes needs to pay more taxes. Obama sounds like Jimmy Carter these days. He is a beaten man.

Obviously, the smart move is to get people who are unemployed to start paying taxes instead of hacking away at the top 10% that already pay 70% of the tax burden. Attacking the job creators and people that buy expensive stuff makes no economic sense. Get the people that are collecting unemployment back to work.

BTW, to all you Obama cheerlearders and Bush haters... Isn't Obama's administration responsible for more debt than the other 43 PRESIDENTS COMBINED?? I don't know how you can blame that on Bush or anyone else.

The debt at the end of fiscal year 2008, when the accrued debt under the 43 presidents was $5.851 trillion, to the end of fiscal 2012, when the debt is projected to reach $11.881 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents.

The debt at the time of Obama's inauguration, when the accrued debt was $6.307 trillion, to the end of fiscal year 2013, when the debt is projected to reach $12.784 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents.

Umm... The main reason there is a deficit is because Bush cut taxes on the rich and then went on a spending spree like a drunken sailor - doubling defense spending, created the DHS, passed the prescription drug bill for medicare (a giveaway to big pharma), etc. Obama wanted them to expire but the republicans threw a fit and said it would kill the economy. How is that working out so far? They are not "raising taxes" - they are trying to roll back some of the giveaways to the rich that have helped get us into this mess.

It's fine to admire the rich and aspire to be like them someday, but they don't care about the rest of the population any more than most people care about people poorer than themselves. "Work harder - work your way up." - that's what you say to the guy making 1/2 what you do. That's the way they look at you. So rather than getting indignant about taxes on people you will never meet and who care nothing about you why not say - put their tax rate back where it was - the country was doing just fine and so were they. The super rich are doing just fine in this economy - wall street salaries are up this year over last. So all this talk about an incremental increase (against a previously larger decrease) on a very small group of people who are doing better than most hurting the economy is insane.

What needs to happen is to let capitalism work. Let it all fail. We just keep propping it up with notions that are against what the US is all about. Funny, we were started by a bunch of guys sick of being told how to live their life, and who were being taxed to death for stupid reasons by their corrupt governement. Now look at us. We bicker on each side of the isle trying to take control and nurture a system that NEEDS to fail and be completely rebooted. I think we should be smart and expedite this thing. Voting GOP will just slowly right a sinking ship. Once upright, its still too heavy to float. Lets vote DEM, and just let this thing sink. With no government in place dems have no power. All the power will be in the hands of the working earner and they can put something back together thats thinner and manageable where people are accountable for themselves.

Obviously, the smart move is to get people who are unemployed to start paying taxes instead of hacking away at the top 10% that already pay 70% of the tax burden.

Obviously the place to find money is where there is none.

I'm all behind unemployed people rescuing the nation from it's debt because I'm employed. Let's see.. IIRC we're currently at $45K per man, woman, and child. And I'm certain that unemployed people are hoarding this money.

Raising taxes on the rich is just something the Dems want to do to appease their voting base. Moochers love the idea that rich people should pay more in taxes. Only one problem with that...it's not going to solve the problem. It's only going to perpetuate the problem. More revenue for this administration will result in more spending, not that increasing taxes on the rich will result in more revenue, in fact it is likely that it will result in less revenue. The president thinks the stimulus should have been bigger! Raising taxes on job creators won't help the debt or the deficit. The system needs to be completely overhauled. The tax code, government spending, and entitlements need to be completely changed. The tax code needs to be simplified so the base is broadened. Right now 10% of income earners pay 70% of income taxes. That's fair? The top 1% earn nearly 20% of the income, but pay nearly 40% of the income taxes. That's fair? 50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. That's fair? Until the system is simplified and more people are invested in this country's business, the class warfare will continue.

If Bush caused the deficit please explain my previous post... Obama's administration is responsible for more debt that the previous 43 presidents combined... how is that Bush's fault? Please explain...

Capitalism working is not capitalism buying govt. Capitalism is doing fine in this country. It's the govt that isn't. I see no one supporting Obama here and saying he's a good President. What I see is people responding to the failed logic of people who seem to believe that Obama is singularly the problem. Obama is a problem along with every other politician.

Go look at the rate of increase of unemployment when Obama entered office and then pay attention to the curve. You can't turn the economy on the dime with rhetoric. And politicians have little more than rhetoric or spending in their tool bag. Policy is virtually cast in stone because govt is controlled by the wealthy. Tarp was already underway when Bush was President. Corp bailouts were already underway when Bush was President.

No politician does anything to kill the economy and raise the rate of unemployment. If you want that t happen it must come from the people. And putting the govt on a diet will do that. Not saying it shouldn't happen, because IMO it should, but you have to face the truth.

When Bush took the war to Iraq, there was zero call from the public to engage in such lunacy. We were cheerleaded into this stupid action and facing a multi trillion dollar liability over it. When Obama took office people wanted the rise in unemployment stemmed. The healthcare bill has little to do with unemployment figures. The rise of unemployment leveled. At the very minimum this is what the public wanted. The fact that there were large amounts of waste is indicative of influential (read wealthy people) with politicians in their pocket. That is the MO of our govt.

And you are right the healthcare bill is bad because the Govt's handling of healthcare is bad. No surprise that healthcare is excessively expensive because it's that way by design. Healthcare or no healthcare bill it's bad either way.

Voting GOP will not right a sinking ship. That's an incredibly naive belief. Neither voting Dem or Rep will right the ship. We still need to experience enough pain that we will begin to see the light and demand meaningful change. We need to start demanding that the govt cut it's agencies and their oppression on the public. Govt needs to stop protecting large corporations with our tax money, We need to realize that we have no business rebuilding nations or even supporting their dictatorships with our tax money.

We need to seek freedom in real terms and stop sacrificing freedom for corporate welfare disguised as phony protection.

The top 1% earn nearly 20% of the income, but pay nearly 40% of the income taxes. That's fair?

Actually, quite fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willrice

50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. That's fair?

This is grand deception. One hand claims that these people pay no federal income because FICA isn't an income tax. The other hand claims the entitlements from the FICA tax needs to stop because they are breaking the budget. Slight of hand for ignorant people, but it works well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willrice

Until the system is simplified and more people are invested in this country's business, the class warfare will continue.

The class warfare will continue because our economic paradigm is unsustainable. As people get poorer and the wealth in other countries increases, corporations will turn to serving non-Americans.

Our paradigm is such that the only correcting factor is increasing wealth in other nations. The problem is that as the rich get richer the govt will only serve the rich and oppress the rest. Our healthcare system is a good example. Our food supply is another. Corporate welfare another. The GOP is behind the curve in seeing the future that awaits a failing economy. One man one vote is a powerful weapon in class warfare. Too bad that Americans are too ignorant and divided to come together and put a stop to it.

You guys don't demonstrate one ounce of understanding of the fundamentals of the economy. Where do you think ALL govt money given to poor people goes? It goes to businesses and corporations. Poor people have no money.

Money is the blood of our economy. Drain the blood and we're dead. A significant problem with our economy is money leaving. Any foreign aid and foreign govt spending is dangerous. The trade deficit is dangerous. I'm not saying this to advocate protectionism. I'm saying it to help you understand issues with the fundamentals.

Where did all the money from TARP and the bailouts go? Corporations. Do you think it's because the wealthy aren't influential and the govt just decided to do it on their own? You are standing up for corporations and the wealthy thinking it's unfair for them to share in the responsibility for all the govt waste that went to them. The waste from these govt handouts to corporations is indicative of the amount of control corporations have on our govt. If the lies about the necessity to go to long protracted wars and these handouts don't clue you in to the fact that the govt isn't about the people then it will take a severe economic decline to wake you up.

Unions are just another example of wealthy influence. It just attaches your attention because they represent the average person. And you don't like anything that benefits as average person because emotional you are in competition with the average person not the wealthy.

Our economy is a timebomb where standard logic doesn't apply. Money leaving hurts us. But if we don't feed the world's needs for our dollars, then they may stop needing the American dollar. Printing money helps the poor because it puts blood in the economy. It helps the world because it keeps money rolling into their economy. It's hurt wealth because the result is ultimately inflation. But wealth isn't earning. People who earn benefit from govt spending when the money is spent in this country.

The extremely wealthy don't care as much because their wealth hinges on shrewd investing and business. The main people it hurts is the elderly who live off retirement savings and SS. So this obsession with stealing SS and healthcare from old people is misguided.

I'm not even going to address the ridiculous claim that these wars are chump change. Rob, you live in a strange world where unemployed people have all the money.

After all these threads I still have no idea where you and that other guy are coming from or what you believe in, maybe I'm just too damn stupid... I don't know

Sam I stand for..

- Smaller govt. A reduction in the size of all agencies.
- Removing the military from foreign countries.
- Scaling back all govt spending to foreign countries.
- An overhaul of healthcare that gives more freedom and less govt control.
- Elimination of farm subsidies.
- End the war on drugs.

We could downsize the FDA and increase the real protections it provides by turning into a source of information vs a source of control. I want the FDA to ensure that package labels give accurate information and manufacturing meets sanitary conditions. I do not want the FDA to be the gatekeeper of the "truth".

Healthcare can be transformed to be cost efficient. It's currently a huge source of waste because of the govt. Medicare will become feasible because costs will go down. Individual costs will go down. The govt is currently full force behind feeding the public just like cattle. That's why we have a 2/3 population of adults who are obese.

What makes more sense to you... a) getting many people that are unemployed and living off the government to get a job and start paying some taxes (pretty big net gain) or b) squeeze an extra 5 or 10% from the people already paying 70% of the tax burden and discourage them from hiring people in the process?

Iraq as % of top 4 entitlements: 5% = drop in the bucket, small potatoes

The people that blame Bush and the Iraq War are truly the clueless ones that don't have a grasp on were our money is truly being spent and wasted. The "unfunded" (LOL) Iraq War had NOTHING to do with our current situation. Obama = Jimmy Carter.. he is a complete disaster. At least we can agree on that. I had PLENTY of problems with Bush, he wasn't perfect by any means but to compare him to the utterly incompetent Obama is a great injustice.

"The debt at the time of Obama's inauguration, when the accrued debt was $6.307 trillion, to the end of fiscal year 2013, when the debt is projected to reach $12.784 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents."

Sam, where are you getting your numbers? And the link you posted was Mitt Romney's projections. This is what I found, and it doesn't come from someone with aspirations of being the next president.

"New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office. The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion. The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms."

So you basically fabricated numbers. But who listen to anyone posting this nonsense:

"very similar to what President Palin or Bachmann will do."

You can't be serious.

Tax breaks don't create job growth. That is the biggest pile of BS, and if you disagree, research what the Bush Tax Cut's did as far as helping create new jobs.

don't forget that the definition of the wealthy here is $250,000 jointly or $200,000 single. I know that if my personal taxes are raised and my corporate taxes are raised, I will not only not be creating more jobs, I will be eliminating some. I am just one of millions of small business owners. This is not some theory from one side of the isle or the other. If the government makes it more expensive to own and run a small business, jobs will be lost. Period.

A good friend of mine would argue that the small business is not a huge factor in Americas economic health. To me, that way of thinking is just reckless.

all politicians lie. all have a secret agenda. todays dems and repubs are all the same....

Jeremy- the #'s Mitt stated have been verified as "Mostly True" by an independent agency if you didn't notice.

"Tax breaks don't create job growth." OK, so explain how giving people that actually create jobs more of THEIR OWN money doesn't create jobs yet taking more of it does?? That is the grand load of b.s. here. Taxes and even the threat of new taxes neuter the economy and job growth. I guess you can keep trying to polish the turd known as Obama but by almost any measure the guy has been a complete and total disaster.

OK, he has NEARLY or ALMOST equaled the deficit previously created by all 43 presidents combined. Even the most disillusion liberal has to taken back by that... I know... it is all Bush's fault LOL.

- SS is funded by SS contributions. It does not belong in that list.
- Medicare is funded by Medicare contributions. It does not belong in that list.
- Unemployment. Funded by unemployment taxes. Yes maybe not enough. Talking point.
- Welfare, Medicaid. Not funded. Talking point.
- Iraq War- That's only the cost to date (if accurate). Not even close to the ultimate liability.

So the Iraq at 3/4 trillion is significant when looking at expenditures not funded by specific taxes. Ask you self where all the money went. Medicare and SS are adequately funded for current expenditures. So where is the money?

Don't worry Cliff, you won't be employing any new people regardless of your tax situation. Unless something changes, and it won't be smaller taxes, you won't have any business anyway. Unless you are in healthcare.

So you basically fabricated numbers. But who listen to anyone posting this nonsense:

"very similar to what President Palin or Bachmann will do."

You can't be serious.

Tax breaks don't create job growth. That is the biggest pile of BS, and if you disagree, research what the Bush Tax Cut's did as far as helping create new jobs.

Man you are delusional.... What is your deal with Reagan? What is your deal with Bush? They are in the past... gone... fini... no more.... now we have your buddy Obama, please tell us how great he is...

Anytime someone can keep more of their own money it will help create jobs. The government can not create jobs, no matter how hard they try.

You always accuse of me lying, stealing someone else's work, or fabricating numbers.... the website is called PolitiFact for a reason, Romney has nothing to do with it, and they won the Pulitzer for reporting the 2008 election. You are the guy making up numbers... I provided my source, you stated what you "found". Hell you can't even read an article and figure it out it wasn't written by Romney...

As far as Palin and Bachmann goes... I guess we will have to see.

"[W]hen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed." - Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Anytime someone can keep more of their own money it will help create jobs. The government can not create jobs, no matter how hard they try.

I'm sorry Sam but this is total fallacy. There are a number of claims you can make about how bad the govt is, but you cannot claim that it can't affect the number of employed.

Let's take Cliff's claim that he won't hire if his taxes are raised. Since I don't know Cliff's particular situation we'll talk about People Like Cliff (PLC). The PLC claim that if their taxes are raised they won't be hiring. That's fine because we know that PLC hire because they need the work done. So now PLC can do the work of 1 maybe 2 employees that he didn't hire. In return he gets two things... 1) no life and 2) more income. Now the govt gets to tax the income PLC didn't pay to the employee he didn't hire at PLCs top tax bracket vs the very low tax bracket the employee would have been out.

The result... the govt gets the same amount of money, can employ another street sweeper and PLC has no life. PLC can now complain about how he works so hard and the freeloaders live off his tax money sweeping the streets. Or better yet the govt hires another inspector to stop by and harrass PLC's business.

^Sam, for someone that claims to be as educated as you boast, you have a hard time with basic reading. Here is "what made up", as you claim:

"New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office. The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion. The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms."

I didn't used Politifact or whatever, I took it straight from the horses mouth.

I don't take issue with what former presidents did until people start boasting about how great things were when such and such was president. My qualm is people seem to think that tax cuts create more jobs, and my point was look at the employment numbers after Bush initiated his tax cuts. There was not an abundance of jobs created, as a matter of fact, jobs were lost. Tax cuts only add to the deficit, yet we don't here Republicans preaching fiscal responsibility when it comes to that issue.

"Anytime someone can keep more of their own money it will help create jobs."

This is simply not true.

I don't think Obama is great, like John, I have been somewhat disappointed in some of his decisions. Not ending the wars, extending the Bush tax cuts, and not offering a more definitive Healthcare plan are just a few issues I don't agree.

"Tax breaks don't create job growth." OK, so explain how giving people that actually create jobs more of THEIR OWN money doesn't create jobs yet taking more of it does?? That is the grand load of b.s. here. Taxes and even the threat of new taxes neuter the economy and job growth."

Rob, if that was a "grand load of b.s.", where your evidence of the new job growth when Bush initiated his tax cuts a few years ago?

"New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office. The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion. The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms."

There is a monumental flaw in thinking that all or even most of the debt increase was due to Obama. You cannot just stop govt spending on the day you take office. Huge govt spending programs designed to stop the economic decline were already in place when Obama was sworn in. We all know this, so why continue to say things that are designed to obscure the truth?

PLC's run their business assigning ideal percentages of cost to each of the categorized overhead expenses. When a particular category shows a pattern of increased percentage, adjustments are made to keep the business running at a financially healthy level. When these percentages prove to be to high beyond the control of management, prices are raised and the costs are passed on to the customer. Examples of this are: minimum wage increases, corn based ethanol creating inflation in foods that are corn based or meats where animals eat the corn based product, fuel costs creating inflation, drought or heavy rains limiting crops..... When prices are raised, there is always a short term decrease in the customer count. Although they always return, the interim does affect the income of the entire staff. So, timing is very important. My business has seasonal fluctuations just like many other businesses do. My business also relies on providing a better value for the dollar than ALL of my competitors. If the competitors aren't raising prices, I can't raise prices either. Doing so would throw us directly in the same "pond" with the "big boys" and therefore affect sales.

So, there are times when percentages get out of line and I am not able to raise prices. If the taxes were increased and the business had less money to keep each percentage within its range, the adjustment would have to come from somewhere. If cost to the customer was already at its peak, the cutbacks would have to come from within. There are several ways to play this, but one option is always having the PLC work in place of an employee. Doing so does not put more dollars in PLC's pocket. Let me say that again; doing so does not put more dollars in PLC's pocket. It merely keeps things the same as before the expenses increased, or it minimizes the losses that there would have been otherwise.

the result is that Uncle Sam does not get his money anyway. The money "saved" isn't increased profit, it is redirected to pay for increased expenses.....taxes, food cost.....PLC doesn't work for a wage, so the famous FICA argument won't work.

Uncle Sam and the local economy lose out on "let go of employee BoB's" income. He has non. If someone were to argue that he has unemployment, I would say that there are several ways to release a person without him being able to draw unemployment (not that I would necessarily do that)

So let me get this straight... instead of actually discussing the issue at hand; Obama's policy and associated debt, you would rather change the subject to Bush? I hate to tell you, but the tax cuts were actually extended by your hero...

So your position is that the government should take more of our money away because the government knows how to spend it better than the people who actually earned it? What do you have against rich people? Are you jealous, or just lazy?

How in the world can a tax cut cost anything? Who does it cost? Are you saying that the Bush Tax Cuts cost the Federal Government $2.8 trillion? If that is the case, did the people save $2.8 trillion? It is no the government's money to lose, it is the people's money.

the result is that Uncle Sam does not get his money anyway. The money "saved" isn't increased profit, it is redirected to pay for increased expenses.....taxes, food cost.....PLC doesn't work for a wage, so the famous FICA argument won't work.

I purposely left out FICA as to not complicate things. Since we are talking about earning of over $200K I can safety assume that your top tax bracket is at least as high as a low wage worker including 15% FICA. The govt gets an extra bonus because your taxes are tax not a future SS/Medicare liability.

Everything you are telling me goes against your point. Your goal is to keep your income over the $200K level because thats where your complaint lies. Taxes are not the problem. Cost of goods and income from customers are your problem as you clearly described.

If as you say you are not hiring an employee to keep your income in the $200K level, then you are the one paying the price, not the govt. The govt will get it's tax revenue and spend the money in other places ultimately resulting in some kind of job. Higher taxes at the $200K level for a business owner is simply the govt telling you to hire an employee or choose not to and punish yourself.

also....in a couple of years, I plan to open another store in a different city. I will take on all of the risk (perhaps with some investors). I, like other PLC's, will take on a risks not only financially, but with personal relationships, health, quality of life...ect....

If I succeed, there will be many people employed.

If I succeed, because I took the risk, I should also reap the rewards. What some believe is that even though I took the risk, I should also be subject to tax increases every time that the economy gets out of control. No increases for the workers, just me.

so to be clear: I come up with the business model. I come up with the product. I develop the marketing strategy. I create the org chart. I hire, train, employ,and motivate a staff. I take all of the financial risk.

but when the government comes knocking, it's me that pays. I don't think so

taxes should be spread out to anyone that gets or makes any money. anyone. period.

the last time that I posted something like this on this forum, someone replied that if I don't like it, just be an employee and don't own a business. really? that's the answer? I hope not

PLC's should be encouraged to open more businesses. They should be rewarded for providing benefits, jobs, careers......
not taxed to the point that they decide to go elsewhere and clock in/clock out

"How in the world can a tax cut cost anything? Who does it cost? Are you saying that the Bush Tax Cuts cost the Federal Government $2.8 trillion? If that is the case, did the people save $2.8 trillion? It is no the government's money to lose, it is the people's money."

This is going to be a tough argument to win. Like climbing a tree upside down.

The problem with these circular arguments is that we the people are responsible for govt spending. So when tax revenue goes down and debt goes up we aren't paying our bills. Doesn't get any simpler.

When you borrow SS and Medicare to pay the bills you didn't pay for in the first place, you increase debt. SS isn't an entitlement the way you want it to be. If so then all govt debt is an entitlement. You want to eliminate debt then just default on all of it. Otherwise just pay the bill and deal with spending. That means cut spending and pay higher taxes. Or increase the money supply.

but John, it's $250 combined. The result would be for the PLC to hire someone and keep the spouse from working in order to get the household income down. Also, you said that the result would be that the government would get the money and that would result in another job. That is a far stretch. Why not leave job creation to the public, reduce the size of government. Wouldn't that create more tax revenue and lower government costs?
Punish myself? that's one way to look at it I guess. I don't look at it that way. I guess that's the big difference between the demo and the repub....

Yep, for many years my (ex)wife was a stay at home mom, and one consideration was that it just wasn't worth her working for chump change and paying in the top tax bracket

The job claim not a far stretch because I still haven't gotten an answer as to where all the money has gone. There seems to be some unspoken belief that when the govt takes tax money it burns it and it never sees the light of day again. I guarantee you if the govt cut spending and balanced the budget today the job lose would be massive. Both for govt workers and the general economy.

Do you really believe that any of them have our best interest(s) in mind?

F No! And it's a damn shame that people align with these two parties even though they hold Corporate Americas interest first. Interesting thing I read lately, The number of former lobbyists working as key congressio*nal staffers has more than doubled since the Republican Party took control of the House. What more evidence do you need? Goldman Sachs. The most powerful Corp in the world. It's no coincidence that Dem and Repub administrations always have ties to this firm. And I cannot believe after all the evidence that people still preach trickle down economics...

"What do you have against rich people? Are you jealous, or just lazy?"

How do you know my financial standing? You act like a pompous a-hole with that sort of remark. You just insulted the middle class. Are you saying that a guy making a million dollars works any harder than a guy that makes 10 bucks an hour? So a wall street investor works harder than a guy that lays brick 40 hours a week? That's your problem, you equate the guy that makes the most money to being the hardest worker. You are a clown of the highest degree. But to clue you in, I am a college graduate, my wife is a doctor, and right now I am working 60 + hours a week until I begin teaching again in the fall. We have a home in one of the nicer areas in our town, we hold the titles to both of our vehicles, and both of us have a substantial amount in our respective retirement plans. I resent you calling me jealous or lazy because if you are the standard that I should be jealous of, I would not be jealous of you in any way. I feel sorry for you. If I was in any way like you, I would take one of your hundreds of firearms and blow my brains out. You claim to be some sort of patriot, yet you are as Anti-American as Bin Laden was.

"So let me get this straight... instead of actually discussing the issue at hand; Obama's policy and associated debt, you would rather change the subject to Bush? I hate to tell you, but the tax cuts were actually extended by your hero..."

Again, take a reading class, leave the higher level classes you claim to take to people that can read at a middle school level. I addressed that a few comments earlier:

"I don't think Obama is great, like John, I have been somewhat disappointed in some of his decisions. Not ending the wars, extending the Bush tax cuts, and not offering a more definitive Healthcare plan are just a few issues I don't agree."

"What do you have against rich people? Are you jealous, or just lazy?"

How do you know my financial standing? You act like a pompous a-hole with that sort of remark. You just insulted the middle class. Are you saying that a guy making a million dollars works any harder than a guy that makes 10 bucks an hour? So a wall street investor works harder than a guy that lays brick 40 hours a week? That's your problem, you equate the guy that makes the most money to being the hardest worker. You are a clown of the highest degree. But to clue you in, I am a college graduate, my wife is a doctor, and right now I am working 60 + hours a week until I begin teaching again in the fall. We have a home in one of the nicer areas in our town, we hold the titles to both of our vehicles, and both of us have a substantial amount in our respective retirement plans. I resent you calling me jealous or lazy because if you are the standard that I should be jealous of, I would not be jealous of you in any way. I feel sorry for you. If I was in any way like you, I would take one of your hundreds of firearms and blow my brains out. You claim to be some sort of patriot, yet you are as Anti-American as Bin Laden was.

"So let me get this straight... instead of actually discussing the issue at hand; Obama's policy and associated debt, you would rather change the subject to Bush? I hate to tell you, but the tax cuts were actually extended by your hero..."

Again, take a reading class, leave the higher level classes you claim to take to people that can read at a middle school level. I addressed that a few comments earlier:

"I don't think Obama is great, like John, I have been somewhat disappointed in some of his decisions. Not ending the wars, extending the Bush tax cuts, and not offering a more definitive Healthcare plan are just a few issues I don't agree."

LOL... struck a nerve, did I? Sticks and stones... Sticks and stones...

Again.... How in the world can a tax cut cost anything? Who does it cost? Are you saying that the Bush Tax Cuts cost the Federal Government $2.8 trillion? If that is the case, did the people save $2.8 trillion? It is not the government's money to lose, it is the people's money.

It is not me that thinks the "rich" need to pay a disproportionate amount of their income as taxes, it is you; therefore, it is you that thinks their "work" is not equal. I believe in working smarter, not harder...

Again.... How in the world can a tax cut cost anything? Who does it cost? Are you saying that the Bush Tax Cuts cost the Federal Government $2.8 trillion? If that is the case, did the people save $2.8 trillion? It is not the government's money to lose, it is the people's money.

I can't believe that you are trying to make this argument. The people's govt spends, the people need to pay. Why is this so complicated? If you cut the amount everyone chips in and continue to spend, then you have a bigger problem with debt. Bush decided to cut the amount the people chip in but the govt continued spending more money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

I believe in working smarter, not harder...

Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't have anything to do with taxes.

The more you benefit from the economy, the more you pay. That's the concept of taxation The govt *MUST* get money from where money exists. There is no other option, except increasing the money supply. It doesn't take it from the wealthy. It takes the most from the largest earners (in theory anyway, as we all know there are loopholes). Nobody taxes the wealthy unless they are earning (some exceptions apply).

John... I wish that you read mises.org and pretty much anything by Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Ayn Rand, or anything regarding the Austrian School of Economics.

Ayn Rand? You mean the lady who denied smoking caused cancer? Ayn Rand, who received social security and used medicare while in the hospital being treated for LUNG cancer? Well, at least I agree with her views on religion.

Ayn Rand? You mean the lady who denied smoking caused cancer? Ayn Rand, who received social security and used medicare while in the hospital being treated for LUNG cancer? Well, at least I agree with her views on religion.

Jimmy Z,
Christ himself was not without fault... Show me the perfect man and I will show you the fool who believes he has found the perfect man.

I can't believe that you are trying to make this argument. The people's govt spends, the people need to pay. Why is this so complicated? If you cut the amount everyone chips in and continue to spend, then you have a bigger problem with debt. Bush decided to cut the amount the people chip in but the govt continued spending more money.

Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't have anything to do with taxes.

The more you benefit from the economy, the more you pay. That's the concept of taxation The govt *MUST* get money from where money exists. There is no other option, except increasing the money supply. It doesn't take it from the wealthy. It takes the most from the largest earners (in theory anyway, as we all know there are loopholes). Nobody taxes the wealthy unless they are earning (some exceptions apply).

You are arguing the wrong argument! The Bush tax cuts didn't cost anyone anything. You should be arguing that the Bush spending was the problem. The people having more of their own money can never be a problem.

Furthermore, your concept of taxation is incorrect in my opinion. Taxation doesn't represent the exchange for receiving a benefit; otherwise, the level taxation could be quantified by the amount of "work" required to equal the perceived benefit. Taxes do not equal a cost.

From Mises...
A tax is nothing but a penalty, by coercively transferring valuable, not yet consumed assets from their producers to people (through the government) who have not produced them, taxation reduces producers' present income and their presently possible level of consumption. Moreover, it reduces the present incentive for future production of valuable assets and thereby also lowers future income and the future level of available consumption.

Additionally...

Taxation is not just a punishment of consumption without any effect on productive efforts; it is also an assault on production as the only means of providing for and possibly increasing future income and consumption expenditure. By lowering the present value associated with future-directed, value-productive efforts, taxation raises the effective rate of time preference, i.e., the rate of originary interest and, accordingly, leads to a shortening of the period of production and provision and so exerts an inexorable influence of pushing mankind into the direction of an existence of living from hand to mouth. Just increase taxation enough, and you will have mankind reduced to the level of barbaric animal beasts.

You are arguing the wrong argument! The Bush tax cuts didn't cost anyone anything. You should be arguing that the Bush spending was the problem. The people having more of their own money can never be a problem.

It's not an argument over whether spending or revenue is the problem. It's an argument over how the lack of revenue is relevent when the spending occured. I think it's obvious and not a source of meaningful debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

Furthermore, your concept of taxation is incorrect in my opinion. Taxation doesn't represent the exchange for receiving a benefit; otherwise, the level taxation could be quantified by the amount of "work" required to equal the perceived benefit. Taxes do not equal a cost.

Nothing incorrect about it. There is no question that people earning the most benefit the most from govt spending and an increase of the money supply. That's reality. The economy is far too complicated to simply say if I can't identify exactly how my tax dollar comes back to me as a benefit, then there is no benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

From Mises...
A tax is nothing but a penalty

I can stop right here because this statement is absolutely wrong. Thanks for letting me know I don't need to read that book. How old is it? Was it written before we went off the gold standard?

It's not an argument over whether spending or revenue is the problem. It's an argument over how the lack of revenue is relevent when the spending occured. I think it's obvious and not a source of meaningful debate.

Nothing incorrect about it. There is no question that people earning the most benefit the most from govt spending and an increase of the money supply. That's reality. The economy is far too complicated to simply say if I can't identify exactly how my tax dollar comes back to me as a benefit, then there is no benefit.

I can stop right here because this statement is absolutely wrong. Thanks for letting me know I don't need to read that book. How old is it? Was it written before we went off the gold standard?

It is not a book, and your prior statement that the economy is far too complicated directly supports it... It is basically the Austrian School of Economics... it is not a "school" but an ideal system.

"Nothing incorrect about it. There is no question that people earning the most benefit the most from govt spending and an increase of the money supply."

This is exactly opposite IMO. How does a person that makes a lot of money benefit from government spending??? This is a very bizarre suggestion. Someone with no money is far more likely to benefit from unemployment checks, welfare, public housing, grants, public transportation, stimulus checks, social security checks, public health clinics, free school lunches, etc...

Rich people have an advantage when it comes to having a means to take advantage of certain investments and hiring accountants to shelter their money but they already pay most of the tax burden so who can blame them for wanting to keep more of THEIR money... greedy bastards.

Sam, let me just say that I don't disagree with premise of what you believe in posting about the ASoE. What I disagree with is that getting from here to there is simply a matter of saying this is what we should be doing. Does the ASoE advocate defaulting on debt? Is this the solution that Libertarians propose?

What IMO is a more appropriate solution is identifying how the economy works and reduce govt spending in a way that minimizes the damage. That's why you continually hear me complain about money leaving the country, and therefore the economy. That's why I keep asking where the money that created the debt went. This is an extremely important question. If we cannot answer this question then how can we propose reasonable change?

If you give money to a welfare mom the money goes right back into the economy and jobs. If I give money to Iraq, where does it go? If you are going to give money, which of the two would you choose? Yes, I know the choice is neither. But the fact is these choices are being made right now. We know who's choosing the welfare. Liberals. But who's choosing Iraq? And why?

Yeah, there are many things that the govt does to penalize us with the tax dollars it's takes. I'm no board with that and right by your side to make it stop. But I have priorities. My priorities are govt oppression and the economy. I want to cut things that hurt the economy and oppress us first, then work on cutting the rest. If people could just focus on what types of spending cuts will hurt our economy the least and what types the most then we'd have a start on budget cuts. But they won't.

Next is getting people to see that the govt is corrupt. We all know politicians lie. We all know that they cater to special interest groups. We all know that the debt keeps increasing but the money doesn't seem to be in the economy. But we don't seem to care. We just want our party in power even though the leaders are willing pawns in a corrupt govt. None of these people should be celebrated.

This is exactly opposite IMO. How does a person that makes a lot of money benefit from government spending??? This is a very bizarre suggestion. Someone with no money is far more likely to benefit from unemployment checks, welfare, public housing, grants, public transportation, stimulus checks, social security checks, public health clinics, free school lunches, etc...

In case you haven't noticed Rob. Poor people don't have any money. All of that money ends up going to people with jobs. It's the fuel of the economy. Take the fuel out of the economy and nobody makes anything.

I see your point. The poor benefit by not starving and sleeping on the street with infectious diseases. But my point is the employed people benefit even more by having cars, boats, plenty of food, better healthcare (sometimes debatable), and a nicer place to live. The better your earnings, the more you benefit. Are you saying that you cannot think of a single way that your job is connected to the economy?

Unemployment is funded through unemployment insurance. Don't confuse the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skull

Rich people have an advantage when it comes to having a means to take advantage of certain investments and hiring accountants to shelter their money but they already pay most of the tax burden so who can blame them for wanting to keep more of THEIR money... greedy bastards.

It's their govt that's spending it. They need to pay the price. When you pay bills at home do you make your children chip in the same amoutn as you because the benefit the same? I doubt it because they don't have any money. You pay because it's the only option.

No, ASoE advocates for the reduction of spending through the reduction of entitlements. They advocate for true liberty and personal freedom. The taking of one man's "work" and giving to another is wrong and should not be done. By doing so the incentive for both parties to do "work" is reduced. The person receiving the benefits and not working for them has less incentive to do "work" for themselves. The person who's work is taken without consent or pay also has less incentive to work since he now knows that the results of his efforts are reduced. On the other hand, if entitlements are eliminated, both parties are encouraged to work. Furthermore, before we had government welfare, we did have welfare.

They advocate for solutions through the private sector. They advocate for personal accountability.

I still think you are wrong. Employed people benefit even more by having cars, boats, plenty of food, better healthcare (sometimes debatable), and a nicer place to live because they WORK for it, not because they are employed. Unemployed people do not reap these rewards because they are not working for it. Therefore, taxation is not an exchange of work for benefits, but a penalty for working. You shouldn't be taxed more because you work more. You should be taxed based on your consumption, otherwise you are taking the "work" of someone and giving it to someone who did not do the work. Either way, both the wealthy and the poor should be taxed on an equal percentage of their spending, not earnings, and not both. Producers can not be expected to carry those who do not produce. How hard a person works has nothing to do with anything. A person should not be penalized for becoming educated, efficient, having forethought, and for having an appetite for risk. It all comes down to the Grasshopper and the Ant.

Based on your example and language, in my opinion, you should be taxed on your consumption through the economy, not your contribution to it.

So, how do we affect change in this system? The only people who run for office are well funded electable types. All electable types are corrupt. Only those willing to lie can amass enough votes to win. Our only option is to elect corrupt politicians into a corrupt system. If you have money you vote for the corrupt rich guy looking to protect his (and therefore yours) wealth. If you do not have money, then you vote for the guy who will take it from those who do and give it to you for a price, therefore using the voting power of the poor to increase his personal wealth. There are no poor politicians, nor are there any politicians looking out for the poor or the rich. They are all looking out for themselves by siding with a faction that increases their own personal wealth.

No, ASoE advocates for the reduction of spending through the reduction of entitlements. They advocate for true liberty and personal freedom.

But don't ASoE advocates think SS is an entitlement even though individuals worked for their contributions, and the govt spent it while promising to repay? It's a debt that must be paid unless they also advocate defaulting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

I still think you are wrong. Employed people benefit even more by having cars, boats, plenty of food, better healthcare (sometimes debatable), and a nicer place to live because they WORK for it, not because they are employed.

Sam, you are still thinking in a world where money is tied to the gold standard. Nobody has a clue as to whether they would have a job or what kind of life they would live in if we were still tied to the gold standard. The govt has created wealth through creating money. We have managed to become an economic power and are blessed with excesses of resources from creating money from thin air. Speaking of resources.. do you think our creator endowed us each with an equal share of the planets resources? Or morally speaking is it those with the power and means have the right to take it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

Unemployed people do not reap these rewards because they are not working for it.

Unemployed people reap very little rewards. I never said I'm against reducing welfare. I'm just not for reducing spending into the economy before spending outside the economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

Either way, both the wealthy and the poor should be taxed on an equal percentage of their spending, not earnings, and not both.

The delusion of getting blood from a stone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

Based on your example and language, in my opinion, you should be taxed on your consumption through the economy, not your contribution to it.

You just insulted the middle class. Are you saying that a guy making a million dollars works any harder than a guy that makes 10 bucks an hour? So a wall street investor works harder than a guy that lays brick 40 hours a week?

So, all work is equal, and those doing jobs that earn more should pay more to equalize things somewhat? There was this great manefesto a few years back that summed up this opinion perfectly. Might want to google it and use it to bolster your position.

I am not talking about "money". I am talking about "benefits" or reward in exchange for production. It doesn't matter what system of money you are using to represent the benefits or reward... you could use sea shells for all I care. I'm talking about the results of work, and the gold standard has nothing to do with it. I fully understand fractional reserve banking and the duplicity of money.

I don't understand your need for the government to have an abundant supply of income. If the person working to produce a good or service keeps their money and spends or puts it to use as they see fit doesn't the money stay in your "economy".

Quote:

I think you should be taxed on money leaving the economy.

So do you think we should be taxed on our taxes? Because that money, or the representative amount of work and therefore production, that is taken in taxes leaves the economy. The people receiving the benefits of those taxes are incentivised to work less since they are receiving something for nothing and those that are contributing are receiving less than their work work or production would otherwise buy and incentivised to work less since they know the reward will be less. They also have less to reinvest in additional production. The money or the subsequent proportional amount of work and therefore production is lost. This is a source of inflation, which I think is what you are referring to when you talk about a gold standard, but please explain if I wrong.

If the person working to produce a good or service keeps their money and spends or puts it to use as they see fit doesn't the money stay in your "economy".

Sounds good if the govt does absolutely nothing for revenue but tariff/tax imports.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

So do you think we should be taxed on our taxes? Because that money, or the representative amount of work and therefore production, that is taken in taxes leaves the economy.

Not quite following this tax on our taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

The people receiving the benefits of those taxes are incentivised to work less since they are receiving something for nothing and those that are contributing are receiving less than their work work or production would otherwise buy and incentivised to work less since they know the reward will be less.

If someone wants to work but there are no jobs. Then someone who works less because of lack of incentive frees up a job.

I'm not suggesting that I want to give people money to give them an incentive not to work. Let's not just ignore reality and create a simplistic theory of human behavior to explain how economic theory works. People not wanting to work did not create the situation we are in.

We are in this situation because we are exporting money from our economy faster than we create it. If you want to try to explain it as greed by people who want more than they deserve then the debate will go careening in another direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

They also have less to reinvest in additional production. The money or the subsequent proportional amount of work and therefore production is lost. This is a source of inflation, which I think is what you are referring to when you talk about a gold standard, but please explain if I wrong.

No question about it. If you have to create money to maintain productivity, then you are going to create inflation. If you export large sums of money from the country then you either create money or cannot maintain productivity. The belief that taxes are the sole or even main reason for loss of productivity is misguided.

The govt exists for the welfare of the people. If the govt lets the people send America dollars out of the economy, then the govt must step in to mitigate the damage for the welfare of the country. Make no mistake about it. I'm not saying the govt is doing a good job. I'm saying that as a sovereign nation we cannot let our economy decline and wait for the world to rescue us.

When we buy more from other countries than they buy from us we are damaging the domestic economy. OTOH, allowing this to happen while expanding the money supply is a significant reason why we are an economic power and the world depends on the American dollar.

"So, all work is equal, and those doing jobs that earn more should pay more to equalize things somewhat?"

Tell me where exactly I said that. Sam hinted that "rich people" (whatever that means) are the hardest workers. I simply retorted that here, in the real world and not Sam's dreamed up utopia, the hardest work is not always rewarded with the highest wage. That's it, nothing more. I know you probably got a boner trying to tie someone to communistic principles, but you swung and missed with me.

"Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach" Sam, You couldn't teach a 7th grade class of pre-algebra. Are you are an educated person SAM? and not the Libertarian Bs of Mises type.
Sorry for jumping in here so late, but I was on the water all day wakeboarding and surfing on perfectly calm 79water/81air.
"It all comes down to the Grasshopper and the Ant" hahahaha Sam, put a grasshopper and a bunch of ants in a jar, didn't the ants win out even in the movie?
The power comes from the people, the people just don't know how powerful they are. Every "rich" person is rich because of the common people, that's where they ultimately get their money. Think you can make money all by yourself? Go to a deserted Island(I'm sure you could buy one) and we'll see how rich you can get by yourself.

John - regarding taxing taxes, this was my poor attempt at a reply to your position that we should tax money leaving the economy.

Jeremy - I didn't imply anything, you made it mean whatever you wanted...

Jo Shmoe - First, it is commonly spelled Joe Shmoe... Second, Yes, I have multiple advanced degrees and was second in my class in Advanced Diff EQ, Calc III, and Linear Optimization...

If you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of Aesop's Fables you would know that the ant did indeed experience the desired outcome and that the grasshopper starved. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that the fable is a lesson for children regarding preparing for the future versus just having fun and not doing so.

Based on your last paragraph, you believe that a "rich" person is rich because of the common people... This may be partially the case, but the "rich" person is wealthy because they did something above and beyond what the "common" people did. Thanks for the lesson in the obvious... by its very definition being "rich" or wealthy separates one from the common people... could everyone be rich? In my opinion, no...

John - regarding taxing taxes, this was my poor attempt at a reply to your position that we should tax money leaving the economy.

Ah, I get it. The tax doesn't leave the economy if the govt just turns around and spends it in the economy.

Look, you've taken those math courses that are closely related to an engineering curiculum. So you should be perfectly capable of separating the simplistic logic about the economy that is ubiquious in our mindset from the unspoken fundamentals. It doesn't take an engineer to realize that a vat of liquid with a hole will eventually empty. It only takes an engineer to tell you how long.

We all know that the money flow to/from our economy is negative. And without much research we can determine that it's negative in the hundreds of billions per year. You know if the govt takes a buck from you and spends it on a street sweeper that it not only stays in the economy, but it generates tax revenue each time it changes hands.

Money is a catalyst. Like a catalyst it's essential to stimulate an action but isn't used up in the process. Money is a catalyst for productivity. You may object to what the productivity produced, but that's beside the point. People need to understand that the loss of the catalyst is the main cause for economic decline.

That's why we need to ask the question.... where did/does the money go?

If our politicians put half as much thought into the economy as John and Sam I think we'd be on the right track. You guys both have differing ideas of how to get things done, but are both very knowledgeable. I applaud you both as I've found both arguments to be quite interesting.

There are a few keys that I would think worth mentioning: How about we balance a budget? How about we come up with a all encompassing tax law that doesn't penalize the upper middle class "spenders"? How about we regulate our banking system and wall street?

To me, everything else is inconsequential. I'm all for a government program that provides wellfare with some type of included medicare, but it can't be a endless street. I think you should have to earn your way into the program by proving that you are either in-capable of working or are trying to get back to work. The red tape and in-fighting between parties makes things much more complicated than it needs to be.